The NRA is busy inflating the ratings of and sometimes endorsing anti-gun and mediocre candidates in General Assembly races across the state. If they are allowed to succeed, Joe Hackney, the Speaker with a 14% voting record who even the NRA gives an “F,” will get the opportunity to draw political districts which will saddle you with anti-gun legislators for the next ten years …

The latest series of articles has documented systematic flaws which make NRA ratings and endorsements at best an unreliable means of judging which candidates support the Second Amendment. NRA apologists have responded with a variety of feints designed to distract from the central issue – that the NRA systematically endorses anti-gun candidates – and to undermine the credibility of the many other groups which have long recognized NRA malfeasance. Among those apologists is an individual, who refuses to identify himself, whom some believe may be none other than Chuck Cunningham, NRA Director of Federal Affairs.

Among the deliberately time-wasting demands made by the NRA apologists, they have called for votes used by Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC) in conducting candidate evaluations, claiming that such information should be at our fingertips. Ironically, the organization they defend does not release such information at all; aside from broad statements about what its ratings are supposed to mean, the NRA does not tell people how it arrives at ratings and endorsements.

By contrast, GRNC is open about what factors are used in its objective “Remember in November” candidate evaluation system. That does not mean, however, that one spreadsheet contains 16+ years of all data on all candidates tracked by our organization. In fact, the master “Remember in November” candidate database for 2010 tracks no less than 77 data fields. Finding data on individual votes (and more importantly, what they mean) requires going back to each legislative session in which a candidate served. Moreover, even the General Assembly web site does not keep the language of floor amendments made to bills. That means going into paper files.

Difficulties aside, I decided take several hours away from election-related radio spots and mailings to satisfy the apologists’ demand with respect to one race critical to North Carolina gun owners: NC House Majority Leader Hugh Holliman.

HOLLIMAN’S PARTICULARS

Hailing from Lexington, NC and representing District 81 in Davidson County, Democrat Hugh Holliman has enjoyed relatively consistent NRA support for his 5 terms in office. In his first run in 2000, in what was then District 37, he received an NRA B+ but not the endorsement, which went to A-rated Cindy Akins.

In 2002, Holliman’s bid for District 81 drew an NRA A and endorsement against B+ rated John Walsler, Jr. which was repeated when he ran unopposed in 2004. Perhaps the NRA apologists can fill us in on his 2006 rating, which I lack, but in 2008 the NRA endorsed him over GRNC 4-star challenger Rayne Brown – an election she lost by only 1300 votes despite both the NRA endorsement of Holliman and a political climate hostile to conservatives in general.

If you look at the data above, you will notice a pattern: (1) All votes but one are for final passage; (2) All are the type of votes commonly used for candidate rating; and (3) All are so thoroughly lopsided that virtually nobody voted against them. On HB 842, for example, Holliman was joined in the “ayes” by such pro-gun bastions as Dan Blue (38% pro-gun voting record), Ruth Easterling (18% pro-gun voting record), and Larry Womble (also 18%).

There are three reasons anti-gun politicians vote for a pro-gun bill:

They know it will pass and want to look good in a recorded vote;

Their party leaders control at least the opposite chamber and assure them it won’t get a hearing there; and/or

The bill is so gutless and/or non-controversial that voting against it would be the sort of purely symbolic action taken by only the most virulently anti-gun politician.

The lopsided votes listed above result in each case from one or more of these reasons, and demonstrate that no candidate evaluation system is perfect. (Yes, GRNC did use the votes as the best available measure).

WHAT HOLLIMAN DOES WHEN YOU AREN’T LOOKING

But now let’s look at what Hugh Holliman does when he thinks he can get away with it, or when gun control stands a very real chance of passage:

Holliman voted FOR HB 320: “Safe Storage of Firearms” (83-33)

This extreme bill, sponsored by Rep. Jennifer Weiss in 2001, would have subjected gun owners to prosecution if a firearm was taken from them and used by a minor, even if the gun had been stored responsibly, and even if the minor had not misused the firearm. The single and only way to be sure of avoiding prosecution would have been to store the firearm and ammunition both locked up and separately, making them useless for self protection. The bill went down in flames in a clean recorded floor vote only because GRNC filled each legislator’s e-mail and voicemail with upwards of 500 contacts, all saying: “PLEASE OPPOSE HB 320, THE ‘RAPIST PROTECTION ACT.’” The barrage so unsettled Weiss that she actually stood before the House to defend her bill by saying, “I would never introduce a ‘Rapist Protection Act.” When it really mattered, Holliman voted against gun owners by voting for the bill – one of 33 (all Democrats) who did so.

Sponsored by Reps. Ronnie Sutton (GRNC 1-star), Maggie Jeffus, (0-star), and Pricey Harrison (0-star), this bill morphed from a one to keep people from applying for pistol purchase permits from sheriffs in other counties after being denied one in their own (a suicide reportedly happened this way) into a massive SBI database to which anyone denied a purchase permit would be relegated for eight years. As you may recall, sheriffs routinely exercise the discretion granted them to deny purchase permits for the most arbitrary reasons, such as limiting the number of permits they issue per year or even deciding an applicant isn’t of “good moral character.”

Translated, anyone denied a pistol purchase permit for any arbitrary reason would have ended up in an SBI database. In some versions of the bill, their name could have been handed to the FBI, which was under no obligation to purge that information – ever.

Yet Holliman voted for this bill. Worse, thanks to Lincoln County Republican (and former sheriff) Joe Kiser’s support for the bill, enough Republicans voted for it that it passed. (And yes, GRNC dinged the voting record of any Republican who voted for it.) Fortunately, GRNC pressure kept it from getting a hearing in the Senate, and the bill ultimately died.

Holliman voted FOR HB 1847: “Report Lost or Stolen Gun” (41-77)

Based on boilerplate legislation run by Handgun Control, Inc. (a/k/a/ “The Brady Center”) across the country, HB 1847 was sponsored by Reps. Larry Hall (0-star), Earl Jones (1-star), and Paul Luebke (a 0-star whose anti-gun voting record of 10% is surpassed only by the present Speaker, Joe Hackney, with 4%).

The bill Holliman voted for would have made criminals of gun owners whose guns were stolen from them or lost unless they reported the loss within 48 hours if they knew or “reasonably should have known” of the loss. The “reasonably should have known” language would have been used against gun owners unaware of gun thefts and, typical of gun control, would have punished gun owners rather than criminals. Despite Holliman’s support for the bill, it failed.

Holliman voted to weaken pro-gun bills

HB 131: Before voting for passage of this concealed handgun reciprocity bill, Holliman voted twice to weaken it on Amendments 1 and 2, offered by Phil Haire (0-star) and Jennifer Weiss (0-star), respectively. Both of the amendments, which failed, would have restricted reciprocity to only those states with “substantially similar training standards,” meaning few of the present 34-odd states where NC permits are presently valid would have qualified. (3)

And the truly duplicitous…

Remember when we said Holliman voted pro-gun on GRNC’s HB 1311: “Domestic Violence Empowerment Act?” In the weakened form that eventually passed, all the bill did was to require courts to notify domestic abuse victims that they could apply for expedited emergency concealed handgun permits to protect themselves from abusers who were murdering their spouses at alarming rates. It didn’t even require sheriffs to issue the emergency permits. But apparently that was too much for the Governor NRA apologists claim is pro-gun – Mike Easley.

Said the Raleigh News & Observer (4):

“Gov. Mike Easley has signed a bill that would encourage victims of domestic violence to seek emergency concealed gun permits -- but he now wants lawmakers to reverse it. Easley had ‘concerns,’ according to a spokeswoman, about the measure's central provision: a requirement that court clerks tell victims who obtain protective orders how to apply for an emergency carry permit. The governor signed the bill late Saturday only after receiving assurances from House Speaker Jim Black that the requirement would be lifted in separate legislation, perhaps this week, Easley spokeswoman Cari Boyce said. Black spokeswoman Julie Robinson confirmed that account.

The vehicle originally picked by our leaders in the General Assembly was a “technical corrections” bill aimed at correcting typos. That’s right: Governor Mike Easley postured by signing a bill he had every intention of subverting by treating it as a typo. This is the former governor that NRA apologists claim GRNC has unfairly maligned.

Details of the subterfuge

GRNC immediately responded by blasting the Governor and Speaker with e-mails and calls. What followed was nothing short of a legislative shell game in which Democrats furiously held impromptu committee meetings and, using “proposed committee substitutes” (PCS), stripped old contents out of un-passed bills and added new language to reverse the pro-gun language of HB 1311. At one point, Sen. Tony Rand (in 2004, NRA A-rated with endorsement, GRNC 0-star) actually convened a meeting of the Rules Committee on the Senate chamber floor during session.

Ultimately, the House Democrats did a PCS on court study bill, SB 173, by striking the word “shall” and inserting “may,” potentially rendering the bill moot:

“The Administrative Office of the Courts shall may develop a 17 standard informational sheet for plaintiffs issued protective orders under Chapter 50B of 18 the General Statutes that explains the plaintiffs' right to apply for a permit under 19 G.S. 14-415.15."

Ultimately, the subterfuge failed by a vote of 49-57. But guess who was on the wrong side of that vote? Guess who voted to disarm victims of domestic violence and leave them at the mercy of abusers? You guessed it…

Hugh Holliman.

EXERCISING ANTI-GUN LEADERSHIP

Most recently, Holliman has been promoted to House Majority Leadership where he, Joe Hackney and Judiciary Chair Deborah Ross (GRNC 0-star) have been undermining your rights by killing no less than 9 bills which could have enabled you to better protect your family. (5) Yes, they include restaurant carry, concealed handguns in parks, carriage during states of emergency, and the ever-popular Castle Doctrine – one bill for which actually passed the Senate before being bottled up by Holliman/Ross in the House.

So out of a total of 23 gun votes cast by Hugh Holliman in five terms, he voted right 14 times – principally when it didn’t make much difference and he knew you were looking – and voted against you 9 times – usually when he didn’t think you would know, and when it really counted.

Yet the NRA has endorsed Holliman against far superior challenger Rayne Brown in a race in which she can not only win, but help change the balance of power to remove virulently anti-gun liberal Joe Hackney from the Speaker’s chair.

WHAT NRA MALFEASANCE MEANS TO YOU

The NRA is busy inflating the ratings of and sometimes endorsing anti-gun and mediocre candidates in General Assembly races across the state. If they are allowed to succeed, Joe Hackney, the Speaker with a 14% voting record who even the NRA gives an “F,” will get the opportunity to draw political districts which will saddle you with anti-gun legislators for the next ten years.

Footnotes:

GRNC uses votes for Second Readings but not Third ratings because after the Second Reading, passage or failure of the bill is pre-ordained and politicians scuttle to the side most likely to help them. It is common to see an anti-gun politician vote against pro-gun legislation on the Second, but for it on the Third. Often times, a recorded vote for Third Reading is waived by unanimous consent. An exception to GRNC’s policy is made if the bill is amended during the floor debate for Third Reading, as was the case with HB 1287 in the 2007-2008 session.

As an NRA Life Member since the early seventies and attending the Charlotte NRA meeting, I think it is past time that the NRA take a hard look at their process improvement, asuuming there is one. The NRA may get somethings right and yes they do get somethings wrong any org does. Any org the size the NRA is should be doing quality improvements internally to get the best results for ALL gun owners for any dollars they receive, regardless of where they think they may be on winning the 2A issues politically. Here in NC we suffer from the too long Dem control of the NCGA, and yes ole SquEasley, among others and that is a reality not some perception that some seem to want to promote. In the past the NRA has put their numerous reps (only one to cover NC) here who were extremely challenged by the swamp that the NCGA creates and lives in as well as having large states areas to cover when they are all in session. How many has that been over the years they have sent here and can they look to see how effective they were or were not? When I go an talk to legislators in past sessions, why am I asked where is the NRA or what is their position? And I have been asked that a lot. I do not speak for the NRA, nor is that my role while there. Point is; the NRA may put a rep in the NCGA but I don't see the effort they put in behind the scenes with the legislators that we (GRNC) do. In all fairness, I am sure there is some effort from the NRA rep. REMEBER, WE LIVE HERE and live with the consequences the NCGA deals us on a daily basis that a NRA rep may or may not know. I know the NRA can't be everywhere all the time BUT, the issues come down to "infringement" of our 2A rights. GRNC is not willing to comprimise those rights. PERIOD. As a life long NC'er who is tired of all this CRAP from the NCGA, on any number of fronts, the NRA would be better off as a service organization to see what can be done to move them from a supposed 800 pound gorilla to a 28000 pound gorilla. Wayne L. can stand an say what he wants about the NRA but perception in NC says a lot and is hard to change. The other gun owners that I see and stop at our tables at the gun shows are TIRED of the crap of comprimise from the NRA and that seems to be what we hear. NRA needs to get the message for NO COMPRIMISE and exact a penaly for that. For all ya'll trying to split hairs with Paul just have at it, it only reinforces what others have come to see and hear from the NRA apologists and ones who just don't get it. How many of you challanging Paul actually take time to walk the NCGA meet legislators and hammer on them like you wan to with Paul? Lets do a head count, I can't hear you. People think they send in $25 or whatever to the NRA and PRESTO all is well or going to be. We all know that is NOT the case regardless of the fence side you are on. Let me repeat, gun owners are tired of comprimise and want the "infringers" to be held accountable and bounce them out of office. We are tired of the games the NCGA plays and are working to hold them accountable. People pay $$ to the NRA with an expectation that the NRA is there for them or even me for that matter. As a person who takes time off to sit in the NCGA and work to fix issues that all NC'ers face I do not see it from the NRA. Maybe the NRA is trying harder, ok then let's see them work "NO INFRINGEMENT" on all 2A votes, accountability and holding these legislators accountable on all fronts on 2A or you are out. NCGA only undersatnds pain, comprimise to them is weakness, I see this too much on a lot of these bills not just 2A. Their game playing needs to stop. United we stand divided we fall, there is too much at stake in NC and the US in the next few years, if we have it that long. So ya'll keep it up the rhetoric and trying to belittle Paul as it only reinforces your promoting of the NRA perception of comprimise, "yes we can".

I agree re: the NRA. They have in many case become what they are opposing, more interested in their own growth and power than in their mission. I'll continue for now to be an NRA member since there is much they do which is valuable. However, I'll continue to put my effort and money behind state based groups who have a clear and consistant mission and are committed to it.

By your and NRA's cynical endorsement of Hugh "Hoplophobe" Holliman, you're increasing the probability that the imaginary "gun show loophole" will be closed. Then your gun-grabbing there will be nothing more than a fading memory of freedom that our children will never have.

Sid, I'm pretty sure it does. It means that NRA used to support the 2A. Now it only pretends to while enjoying the power and privelige that those who came before the current adminstration created. If only they'd use their power and influence to truly support the bearing of arms, instead of cynically propigating the encroachment of freedom that they now (cynically) view as six- and seven-figure job security. I hope you're being well-taken care of, Sid (although for almost any money in this economy they should be able to attract some real talent).

Thanks for noting the typo. I have left a message for the webmaster to correct it. (Also, it is a 60 second spot, not 30). And while we're on the topic of typos and general errors, did I tell you about the lovely letter I recieved from the NRA telling me what a great guy Richard Burr is, and so they were sending me a bumper sticker for him?

One small problem: The enclosed bumper sticker was for somebody else. Oops. Wonder how much of your membership money got wasted on that mailing.

Little more help for you on your website. First, you still have a reference to "Schulers" district. Second, why do you keep all the old stuff up? Your site looks horrible anyway, but all the old stuff (especially where you lost, like the Ray Warren race) just makes it look like you are woefully behind. You usually are, but you shouldn't broadcast it to the world. Oh, and let me suggest you put one "Note: If these do not play properly...." message at the top of the screen, rather than tag every single clip. That page, visually, is a train wreck.

Yeah, I imagine they might make an occasional error, Paul, when you are talking about coordinating mailings to millions of NRA members. Something you obviously don’t have to worry about with your comparative handful of followers. And yet, you still make countless errors, not to mention the intentionally misleading or inaccurate info you put out. Go figure.

I’m glad to see you have deleted our discussion regarding the rules I dictated to you about posting a response to your flawed piece on Holliman. I’m sure many saw it, though, and are scratching their heads as to what, exactly, you are afraid of. Best I can tell, you fear the truth and a free exchange of ideas and information. Now, get back to deleting all the history of your self-admitted campaign against free speech. Your ironic DISCLOSE Act-like rules are obviously still in effect, but there are still many posts that expose it to the public. You haven’t deleted them all.

Looking through some of the back comments, I think you tagged the wrong guy to claim the NRA didn't support both Kaplan and Ward in '94; David Regnery worked on Ham Horton's campaign. NRA support for the wrong guys was one of the reasons Mark McDaniel always ran GRNC's bills rather than NRA's. He knew who is friends were.

And you can harp on an error made by a webmaster all you like. Those who listen to the radio spot and read the articles will see that we are quite aware of who is selling us out in the 11th Congressional District. And if you like the radio spot, you will love the 10,000 calls that went out today. Does NRA have 10,000 members in that district? Does NRA even have 10,000 members in the state anymore? As one commentor noted, we signed your own gun show recruiter to a 5-year membership last weekend. He stopped by the table to thank us for "taking the NRA to task."

You are also quite welcome to continue avoiding the question -- namely, what are the flaws in the Holliman piece?

We both know you're NCRPA. It's hard, isn't? Being out in the legislative cold? It started happening in 1995, when you and Jeff Freeman tried to muck up the concealed carry bill with Sam Ellis' 7 compound amendments in committee. Do you have any idea how little the bills sponsors, John Nichols and Ken Miller, thought of you?

When was the last time you worked a committee in Raleigh (at least without playing toady to Anthony Roullette)?

Maybe you're Russ Parker, who thought he was a big shot until GRNC replaced him. I know you're not Joe Grenda, who had far more class. Does Fran know what you do with your spare time? I doubt she would approve.

Like I said, if you liked the Heath Shuler radio spots, which are right now running across Beck, Rush and Hannity, you're going to love the 10,000 phone calls. Did you know you and the other apologists made them possible? As soon as GRNC supporters became aware of your campaign, they contributed by the dozens.

madashell: Yes NRA is selling North Carolina out too. They sold all of America out with the Reid/Shuler DISCLOSE deal. They say it doesn't matter because they're "one issue" and they don't have to worry about conspiring with liberals to suspend the First Amendment (for everyone but NRA, labor unions and ACORN).

Of course NRA has an explanation: Chris "Spock" Cox is playing a sophisticated political game of 3D chess with the gun-grabbers that they only *appear* to be supporting. Somehow apparent support now is going to lead to eradication of gun-grabbing liberals in the future via some so-far unspecified mechanism (Vulcan death grip)? The political game is so sophisticated and complex, mere intellegent human beings (and NRA members) are incapable of understanding them, so "Spock" Cox won't waste his time trying. In the mean time we're supposed to accept suspension of the First Amendment and endorsement of the likes of Harry "Sotomayor and Kagan, please" Reid, Heath "Shut 'em Up" Shuler and Hugh "Hoplophobe" Holliman.

In an apparent flip-flop sell-out that was in reality an attempt at a brilliant tactical ploy that only extra-human entities receiving six-figure NRA salaries can appreciate, Chris "Spock" Cox led NRA to oppose DISCLOSE until the didn't oppose it.

It *was* stunning, and you're right, "Spock", no human of normal intellegence can understand it - unless the goal is your job security at the expense of First Amendment freedom for ALL AMERICANS.

You can speculate as to my identity all you want, Paul. That’s not what’s important. Facts are important. Truth is important. No individual owns either, so demanding identity is just another misdirection. If you don’t like that people can post anonymously, complain to examiner.com. File it with your alleged “harassment” complaint. You obviously wish to try to distract from facts by attacking the messenger. That seems to be your style, and is a tactic generally employed by the desperate who do not have the facts on their side.

Again, if you want to be educated on Holliman, as well as Paul/GRNC ratings overall, all you need to do is agree to my challenge. Admit deleting factual postings was wrong, and agree to no longer delete postings that challenge your opinions. If you have the truth on your side, what do you have to fear?

As for ’94, I don’t know what to tell you, Paul. I’ve got my voter guide, and it clearly shows Ham Horton endorsed, as well as Marvin Ward. Not Kaplan (who it shows has a C) and Ward. Perhaps this is part of your revisionist history to help with your anti-NRA campaign. Do your “records” show that Ward was “anti-gun”? What was his GRNC rating? Or did you even exist back then?

Finally, I don’t know how many NRA members are in North Carolina. How many dues-paying members does GRNC have? Not occasional contributors, but actual members. You should have that right there in front of you. Amaze me with the amount of support you have. I haven’t listened to your Keith Schulers spots, but it sounds like he’s running a deceptive campaign, and trying to fool people into believing he is pro-gun Congressman Heath Shuler. By all means, work to defeat Keith Schulers.

Ken Soderstrom, we are still waiting for your answers to these questions:

Do you agree with Paul Valone that Congressman Heath Shuler (or Keith Schuler -- oh, that was someone else's fault again) does not "really have a voting record on a strictly gun-related bill" and Congressman Larry "Kissell has exactly zero gun votes under his belt?"

Do you agree with Paul Valone that repealing the D.C. gun ban and allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense in national parks are just "arcane votes deemed unfit for candidate evaluation not only by GRNC but also by GOA?"

Do you think that it is ethical for Paul Valone to post unfounded and inaccurate statements on this site simply to generate controversy and thus make more money since as he says "every time you log on here, I get paid?"

Nice to have you back, Chuck, and I'm glad you're so interested in what I agree with. Let's find some common ground.

1) We both agree that NRA does not currently endorse Harry "Sotomayor and Reid, please" Reid.

2) The facts clearly show that NRA floated the Reid endorsement all summer. It was only retracted after Reid's vote to confirm Kagan. So, assuming we both remain reasonable we can agree about this also.

3) NRA has financially-supported Reid's campaign against Sharon Angle, and will not endorse her despite clear support of gun-rights. This is a fact and so there's no basis for disagrement here. I hope that you'll also understand that reasonable people see this as continued NRA support of Reid, despite the fact that Angle is a better pro-gun candidate (issues of incomprehensible 3D chess aside).

4) NRA clearly opposed DISCLOSE prior to being cut a deal by Reid/Hugh "Shut 'em Up" Holloman et al, and now endorses "Shut 'em Up" despite the key role he played in depriving all Americans of First- and by extension Second-Amendment rights.

Ken, I think you blew a gasket. Your latest GRNC apologist rant is even more confused than usual. Do you actually read what you write? If that's the best a GRNC apologist can do, then I don't foresee much success in your future of promoting attacks on other pro-gun organizations.

(2) The NRA does not "float" endorsements.. Articles written on this subject before the non-endorsement in the Nevada Senate race was announced were mere speculation.

(3) The NRA-PVF contributed to Harry Reid for the primary election and not the general election. Uncertain of when those contributions were made -- would need to check their FEC reports -- but some contributions could have been made even before Sharron Angle announced her candidacy for the U.S. Senate in Nevada.

(4) The NRA clearly opposed the DISCLOSE Act until the House amendment was adopted changing the legislation to no longer affect the NRA at which time they took no position on it -- just like thousands of other bills in Congress which do not affect them or the Second Amendment.

Do you agree with Paul Valone that Congressman Heath Shuler (or Keith Schulers -- oh, that was someone else's fault again) does not "really have a voting record on a strictly gun-related bill" and Congressman Larry "Kissell has exactly zero gun votes under his belt?"

Do you agree with Paul Valone that repealing the D.C. gun ban and allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense in national parks are just "arcane votes deemed unfit for candidate evaluation not only by GRNC but also by GOA?"

Do you think that it is ethical for Paul Valone to post unfounded and inaccurate statements on this site simply to generate controversy and thus make more money since as he says "every time you log on here, I get paid?"

Endorse, support, financially-contribute...it's all the same, Chuck. NRA's pal Harry "Sotomayor and Kagan, please" Reid is benefitting all the same (but what do gun owners get [besides shafted])? And the semantic parsing is really so Clinonesqe and '90s, don't you agree (your membership does)?

Here's an example, Sid. A guy named Joe "Hack the Second" Hackney is currently the Speaker of the NC General Assembly. He's a Brady-Bunch Gun-Grabber with a 4 % rating. The upcoming year is a redistricting year. If "Hack the Second" is still speaker after this election, Brady-Bunch Gun-Grabbers will be drawing the district lines. Do you see how this is a problem for NC gun-owners (I know, it might hurt a little, but try)?

So now we've got the NRA 800 lb 3D chess playing gorrilla bumbling into our state and cutting deals with "Shut 'em Up" Shuler and "Hoplophobe" Holliman. If these guys are elected like the NRA gorilla wants, it will become very difficult to keep "Hack the Second" Hackney out of the Speaker's chair. Get it?

NRA IS SELLING NORTH CAROLINA OUT. You can help preserve the interests of gun-owning North Carolinians by TELLing NRA to STOP ENDORSING "HOPLOPHOBE" HOLLIMAN and "SHUT 'EM UP" SHULER.

I hope you'll wake-up from your NRA "mind-meld" in time to do the right thing.

If anybody with GRNC actually thinks Hackney will be Speaker next year, then you are more out of touch with politics than I thought. Even if the Democrats maintain control, Hackney will not be Speaker. If you think otherwise, then either you know nothing, or Paul has fed you a line to repeat to those who don't know anything about politics in North Carolina. Then again, maybe that covers Paul, too.

Oh, and what's with all the Star Trek references, Ken? When you want to try to be funny, and insult people, try something a little more socially relevent and topical. Most people are probably imagining you as the typical geek at one of those sci-fi conventions. Which is fine, if that's what you are going for.

Chuck, you really need to get your staff to debrief you on Holliman (as apparently you're incapable of reading the piece you're supposed to be discussing).

Here's the skinny: NRA supports Holliman for reasons that no rational NC gun-owner understands. Have you heard about the Castle Doctrine thing that's been making it's way state-to-state? We'll we defenseless souls here in NC don't have it. If someone breaks-in and starts taking things without threat of serious bodily harm there's nothing legal we can do about it here in NC(except watch the gun safe get wrestled into the van and dial 9-1-1). We almost had a Castle Doctrine, until "Hoplophobe" Holliman killed it.

And the NRA endorses "Hoplophobe" Holliman the Castle Doctrine Killer, and Chuck doesn't even realize it. It kind-of makes NRA an accessory to Castle Doctrine murder. Thanks for less-than-nothing, NRA.

Ken/Paul (very good chance they are the same person, as someone else suggested), you don't qualify as a "rational NC gun-owner." The key word being rational.

Now, if anyone wants to know the truth about what GRNC is, just go to its website. Prominantly featured are numerous attacks on NRA. Go to NRA-ILA's website and you see alerts on what you can do to defend your rights as a gun owner. And, of course, nothing about GRNC.

So, GRNC was created, and exists, with a primary purpose of attacking another pro-gun organization. That's why it is there.

Oh, and get this. GRNC has actually put out an alert claiming it is "Under Attack." GRNC (which is really just Paul) actually considers it an "attack" when its lies about NRA and pro-gun legislators are proven to be false. That is one insecure organization (which is really just Paul).

But the saddest part is, you would never know they put out an alert. It was posted last week, when Paul first started crying about a "harassment campaign." And the best this rallying cry could muster was a couple supporters. So, Paul, you gonna answer my question about how many members you have, or have we already seen the answer? Barely a handful.

Finally, Ken has admitted the truth. GRNC is an organization that prefers Republicans. That's the big difference. NRA seems able to look beyond political parties, while GRNC just wants Republicans. I guess whoever posted earlier about GOA and GRNC supporting Republicans because of their party, and not their views on guns, must have been correct. Thank you for explaining the truth, Ken. If you could just get Paul to admit it, we'd finally be getting somewhere.

"GRNC just wants Republicans," really? If you tools would bother checking this years GRNC "Remember in November" guide, you might notice more than a couple of 3 and 4 star rated DEMOCRATS.

I'm a member of the NRA myself, but when it comes to State-level gun rights...at best, NATIONAL orgs like them don't always have the resources we need to fight at the State level. And at worst, NRA's shortsighted and sometimes *bizarre* decisions actually UNDERMINE people on the State level. The Disclose act is one example (they sold out EVERY state-level gun org, not just GRNC). Their endorsement of Democrat Bev Perdue for Governor of NC was another one. Maybe Bev isn't an enemy of gun rights, but she sure as heck isn't our FRIEND either! Just look at how NC still has the inane "emergency-declaration Second Amendment Suspension" law in effect.

And I will give you this - unless the Democrats in NC "take out the trash" in terms of gun-hating Democrats, ESPECIALLY IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, then gun rights in NC will be better served with Republicans in charge.

For that matter, the same thing applies to the Federal Government as well. Just look at that pathetic LIAR Barack "I support the Second Amendment" Obama. He was barely two steps in the door of the White House before he and Eric Holder were ready to bow to the wishes of MEXICO and re-instate Clinton's "scary looking gun" ban!

Sid, I'm really trying hard to be nice to you, but you're not making it easy.

Yes, you're right that we shouldn’t be playing games with the Constitution. It's only a couple of pages and clearly simple and straight-forward by design. That was its genius.

Any organization that tries to make Civil Rights complicated is blowing smoke. NRA is blowing smoke by inferring that political reality is beyond our comprehension (3D Vulcan chess…really)? Shame on NRA for floating this.

Americans can and do stand on their own two feet. North Carolinians are no exception. Big-Shot NRA has come in here to try to skew elections to serve itself before gun-owning North Carolinians. Shame on you, Sid, for supporting this (maybe you already realize the shamefulness of your behavior which explains your clutching to anonymity, and that probably means you’re getting paid. Well, at least your family will eat while they have problems defending themselves).

Regarding party affiliation, I’m not a fan of socialism, it’s true. I’m not a Republican, but tend to prefer them over Democrats. I am a libertarian, in the Jeffersonian sense. I don’t care what party you come from as long as you don’t deprive me of freedom. I don’t speak for GRNC, but it seems to me that they don’t care what party you come from, as long as you don’t infringe on the rights of North Carolinians to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately NRA has been crossing this line with increasing frequency (and not just in North Carolina).

Why is NRA selling-out the First Amendment by cutting deals with Harry Reid and Heath Shuler? Why is NRA selling-out the Second Amendment by endorsing Hugh “Castle Doctrine Killer” Holliman. Those in NRA leadership are pulling-down six- and seven-figures a year to protect us. Why are they selling-out?

Could it be that with the recent Supreme Court decisions finally providing precedent that the Second Amendment is an individual, personal right of all Americans that they fear their (six- and seven-figure) jobs are done?

So, if you don't care about party, Ken/Paul, why do you care about redistricting? And why does virtually all of the misinformation (I'll be nice to you and avoid calling them lies) you regurgitate from Paul/yourself go after Democrats--including solidly pro-gun Democrats?

BTW, I'm pretty sure NRA has been involved in NC elections since long before Paul dreamed up starting his little competing organization. Welcome to the party. It's nice to see you finally showed up.

Sid, I agree that it's really unfair that we have to "politically profile" when it comes to maintaining Second Amendment rights. I really, really do wish that every political party supported the right to keep and bear arms equally. But sadly, in the real world where people really do need to be armed, things that shouldn't happen do. And political parties that should support every American's God-given right to keep and bear arms don't. It is sad, but unfortunately true. I hate to be the one to bring this harsh reality to your innocent attention. This unfortunately means that for us North Carolinians that second amendment rights will be better served if Hugh "Hoplophobe" Holliman, Heath "Shut 'em Up" Shuler and "Hack the Second" Hackney are defeated. The upside is that these candidates themselves all have problems with their individual support of the Second Amendment (whether or not NRA admits it or not). So don't worry, you don't have to be a "political profiler" to vote against these freedom-deprivers.

Pages

Paul Valone is a Second Amendment veteran who directs Grass Roots North Carolina (www.GRNC.org) and who regularly impacts local, state and federal gun laws. He will advise gun rights supporters of impending threats. E-mail: FPV@fpaulvalone.com.